don’t forget to grieve
Bob Hyatt a couple of weeks ago wrote this wonderful reflection on Good Friday. I bookmarked it in my rss reader so I could come back and read it on the actual day of Good Friday.
He writes:
“I once attended a Good Friday service where the pastor encouraged us to look at Good Friday positively, to see the crucifixion through “Easter eyes.” I could only shake my head at this massive misunderstanding and missed opportunity.
His intentions were good… He didn’t want anyone to feel bad. He wanted to protect us from feeling defeated as we meditated on the death of Christ. It’s completely understandable. But in doing so, he robbed us of exactly the feeling and experience that Good Friday is meant to give us. “
I remember some people coming back from a world gathering of our movement and telling me of a speaker to urge them to see the cross as a plus sign. I too could only shake my head at this massive misunderstanding and missed opportunity.
Bob goes on to say:
“Take Easter, for example. Every year the pastor stands and does his best to project the words “Christ is risen!” And we half-heartedly answer, “He is risen indeed…?” Usually we have to try it a couple of times to work up any enthusiasm at all.
And the reason we don’t feel the joy at Easter that we know deep down inside we should, is because we don’t feel the grief at Good Friday that we could. We enter our well-lit sanctuaries on Good Friday, sing some songs, hear a nice message about the crucifixion, and go out for dessert afterwards with our friends. We enter with smiles on our faces and leave the same way. If only we knew how to grieve…”
To say Christ is risen with integrity means that we need to let Jesus die and be buried even at the cost of our grief.
I love this line of the post:
“Good Friday ruined the first disciples’ weekend. Maybe we should allow it to ruin ours as well.”
It is a far cry from “Happy holidays” or “enjoy your long weekend” but what a powerful way to enter into the biblical story.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:25 am
yeah ok i guess… but how can you let it ruin your weekend when you know what happens afterwards in the next chapter.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Amen… At the supermaerket last night, bout 5pm, it wasnt unlike Christmas. People buying bottles of coke, chips, slabs of beer. Maundy thursday is one of retailers biggest sales opportunities of the year. and of course those bright, shiny, wrinkly eggs. I saw a hearse pass through an intersection at the lights. And I was reminded of what this weekend was a bout. Your post has grounded me again… Thanks
April 14th, 2006 at 10:45 am
The movie Saving Private Ryan showed a very interesting dynamic where old man Ryan visited the graves of the men who had lost their lives to save his many years ago. I was taken by both his grief, since he never really knew those who gave their lives, and his cry that he hoped he’d lived a good life to somehow make their sacrifice worthy, as if he owed at least that to them.
It dawned on me that this was a credible picture. His grief would be real, yet I wondered how tangible Christ’s sacrifice was to us….or whether we just accept the facts. I wondered what it might be like if say a parent had died protecting me from danger, how that might stay with me, how I would have a story to tell, and a grief that was tangible.
A lot of the Easter story was a collection of facts in the bible that I accepted as true but it all happened before I was born. So how could I enter into a tangible experience of the cost he paid for me? Should I try to feel guilty? It’s certainly pushed from some pulpits… I realised that I had been a Christian ‘all my life’ as they say, and as such I never had felt I’d been saved from anything as Ryan was. There was a deeper journey to take and one I then invited.
I understand the first comment that there is a good news story, its all over, its finished, but I think its important to have known as Ryan that tangible emotion of a sacrifice that is personalised as if it happened in our own lifetime. Not a story in a book.
April 14th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
The death and resurrection of Jesus is not a powerful story as you suggest. It is a silly story.
Think about a partially decomposed body with its smell, and cells that can no longer function. What morbid fascination Christians have with this walking undead person.
And what is Easter Sunday, but Jesus Zombie party day?
April 14th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
And what kind of person are you, that ridicules something that is the most precious part of someones innermost being?
the rev
April 14th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
From “EASTER AND THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT” by Keith S Cornish
“The doctrine of atonement begins with the idea of sin and ’sin’ - a purely religious term bearing little relationship to moral values or social responsibility - is tied to the folk myth of Adam and Eve and the ‘fall of man’. Augustine (354-430) taught that after ‘the fall’ man was totally depraved and only through the Church could humans acquire a measure of merit. By devotion, observance of duty and penance it was considered possible to acquire a super abundance of merit and it was this concept which led to much abuse and ultimately sparked the Reformation.
The idea of transmitted merit was tied to the concept of transmitted guilt but both sides are equally unethical. However, the proposition was further enlarged to impute that through the death of Jesus humans were not only considered to be righteous but were actually righteous. It is being realised today that such conceptions are ethically unjustifiable and psychologically impossible. The goodness of human beings may influence and benefit others and their example may stimulate the moral perception of those whom they contact but this does not constitute transference of merit.
A major obstacle for theologians is the fact that, though they accept the impossibility of the transfer of guilt from the transgressor to the innocent, they still are obliged to maintain that Jesus endured the full penalty of the individual and collective sin of humankind even though a major element of that penalty is considered to be the consciousness of guilt. The guiltless cannot be conscious of guilt and Jesus is always projected as perfect. It is axiomatic that a perfect being cannot be conscious of imperfection.
The doctrine of penal substitution or vicarious suffering is central to the Pauline letters but the idea of the innocent paying the penalty of the guilty (the scapegoat principle) is morally unacceptable. The transfer of punishment to an innocent person would not be allowed by any national government but was ordained by Yahweh (according to scripture) in the case of Jesus. It is possible for a third party to pay a fine or make recompense but that does not transfer guilt.
To kill an innocent person instead of the guilty is a crime and calling it ‘vicarious sacrifice’ is an attempt at whitewashing. In the words of Canon Storr “Nothing is more central to Christianity than the cross yet creates more difficulties.”
Let us continue to list these difficulties:
What is the condition that makes the atoning death necessary? Theologically humankind is regarded as having rebelled against the authority of Yahweh and therefore come under ‘the wrath of God’ who is morally bound to inflict punishment.
Why must an omnipotent being be offended by another person exercising their free will? Why must the punishment be death? Why must the penalty be handed down generation after generation? If someone creates something, by what strange reason does he then have the audacity to be angry and condemn the imperfections of his own creation? Is not anger a sign of imperfection in the creator?
How is it possible for a human to commit an offence against a spirit? Surely the idea is ridiculous.
Human beings offend against other human beings and the logical person to whom restitution or expression of regret should be offered is to the one who has been hurt. It cannot and should not be an uninvolved third person and yet theologians and purveyors of religion continue to insist that humankind has sinned against Yahweh and can only be reconciled by the death of Jesus. Debts can be transferred but moral obligations cannot.
To Christians the death of Jesus fulfilled the condition of total filial obedience and was therefore supremely satisfactory to Yahweh but doing what one perceives as his or her duty cannot be construed as a means of divine influence. Total submission and obedience to the perceived will of Yahweh is still advocated as the supreme goal for Christians.
In regard to the crucifixion theologians stress that Jesus was not only man but the second person of the Trinity. This places them in another predicament, for by definition a god cannot die and, as a god, Jesus would have no fear of even a bodily death. On a purely physical level the death of Jesus as told in the gospels was comparatively blood-free, speedy and far less painful than the long drawn-out torment which many people have had to suffer.
What sort of a deity could gain satisfaction from the death of Jesus? The answer is surely that it is the type of god depicted in the Old Testament, a deity worthy of contempt and rejection by moral humankind. Were such a being to exist it would be a betrayal of the dignity of humankind to ask forgiveness for failure to pay homage to such a disgusting person.
It is not possible for an innocent person to be guilty of a crime which they did not commit although they may be punished for it.
Similarly it is not possible to be sorry or ‘penitent’ instead of or on behalf of someone else. There are some things that cannot be transferred to anyone else. A person who is innocent cannot be penitent for a crime they did not commit.
There are people who argue that suffering has a moral value and carries within it the potential for good but it is difficult to see how physical or mental suffering and death can, of itself, bring benefit, yet this is an aspect of atonement which is strongly propagated by Christians. Pain as such has no power of atonement - it cannot obliterate guilt. To demand that someone has to suffer to expiate a transgression is not our concept of justice or ethics.
Those who take the Bible literally have another problem for they believe that the sentence of physical death was passed on Adam for disobedience and handed down to all subsequent generations. It would therefore follow that Jesus being ‘without sin’ could not die.
Finally the idea of being ‘washed in the blood of the Lamb of God’ is the backbone of the evangelists followed up by the doctrine of salvation through repentance from the everlasting torments of hell. Thousands have been frightened into Christianity and Islam and the advocates of these movements argue that it is better to gain converts through fear than no converts at all. Thinking people recognise that fear is never productive of the best and in terms of religion it breeds servility.
The Church has been forced to quietly discard the doctrine of everlasting torment in hell.
How much longer can the Church continue to hold as its central doctrine a concept which is ethically bankrupt?”
April 14th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I thought you didn’t even believe in God (based on your other post)… why are you bothering to post a critique of Christian doctrine? There’s no point nit-picking over doctrine if you don’t believe in God at all. Unless you’re only wanting to shit-stir Christians. Oh well, at least Keiran Green has some moral support.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Thanks Anon, you have helped me so much, I will now turn my back on the faith and finally live in the real world of scepticism. That one post of completely original ideas that I have never been exposed to finally caused the penny to drop. You are such a helpful and thoughtful person. Thanks for coming to a website discussing Christian thought, and practice to share your disbelief. You have been such a helpful condescending egotistical evangalist for your views.
Oh and how brave you are, to share your real name and everything, man I want to be like you when I grow up.
the rev
April 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I think Anon would have much more fun on some American fundamentalist site (if you’ll excuse the aspertions on your countrymen, Rev). Quoting a crock from some ill-informed athiest isn’t going to produce the histrionics he’d like on this site, alas. Nice try.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Keith Cornish, btw, was the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
A casual read suggests he doesn’t exactly have a doctorate in theology. Still… I’ll say this in favour of atheists… at least they engage in discussion about religion. I actually dislike the way so many people are terribly politically correct in relation to religion… these days you could turn up to a party and claim: “I believe in the tooth fairy”, and someone is bound to reply: “How nice for you… your beliefs must be a great comfort to you.” When I went to uni one could have rip-roaring religious debates, and one’s faith was put under the microscope. Those were the days. I’m getting old.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Hmm. Interesting discussion. Just why does the death and resurrection story cause so much discussion?
April 15th, 2006 at 9:50 am
It’s central to the Christian faith. Jesus’ death establishes a way for a right relationship with God, Jesus resurrection establishes his credentials as the unique son of God. Hence it’s a key area for people to attack or defend Christianity.
I think the media likes to beat up this issue because it arouses an interesting emotional response from Christian fundamentalists, and those who dislike Christians and the church (for all sorts of reasons) seem to relish this.
Does anyone recall the massive publicity Barbara Theiring’s book received when claiming to have discovered a new way of interpreting the bible (she had “discovered” a “code” in the gospels, which revealed… amongst other things… Jesus was crucified by members of his community, but taken down from the cross alive in an area near the Quamran caves. He married Mary Magdalen, he established a formal hierachy among his disciples… etc. etc.)
I read her book… well most of it… and it was probably the loopiest, most fanciful book I have ever read. There was not one… no not one… biblical scholar or historian who supported her findings, and there were holes in her logic you could drive a truck through. (Do a net search on this topic and you’ll find out how ridiculous her claims were). Despite this, she was on multiple shows on tv and radio… it was a media circus.
The recent flutter on the “gospel of Judas” (which has been around for donkey’s years) is yet another example of the absurd beat up the media engages in with anything that seems to contradict the gospel accounts… despite the extraordinarily high level of credibility these documents have compared to all other sources. And we can expect “Da Vinci code” hysteria to hit the headlines for a while to come, despite the fact it’s “historical” claims are mostly ridiculous.
What do others think? Why is Christianity such a target? Is it because the church falls short of the ideals of Jesus? Is it because people simply don’t want Christianity to be true?
April 15th, 2006 at 10:33 am
A book with a different slant on the Jesus story can generate much profit for the author. The cause may just be boredom with the orthodox version, which could become boring after so many repetitions. People like interesting stories.
I don’t think Christianity is such a target as you say. Many people, I would think, do not think about it.
April 15th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Enough people are interested to “generate much profit for the author”! Not that I’m denying the apathy of many others.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
[…] This is my 50th post for this blog, and I’ve been hanging out to make it a good one. This year I’ve been a bit conflicted as to exactly how we’re supposed to approach Easter. I know that a lot of bloggers have cried out for the church to learn how to grieve over the cross (Phil’s post over at signposts called “don’t forget to grieve” was a quality, confronting example) but somehow I think my natural reaction is for that type of approach to send me into depression and self-condemnation, which is probably just something that I’m working through. […]